PPP/Civic against separate states in Guyana - rejects calls to
change electoral system

Guyana Chronicle
April 18, 1999

THE PPP/Civic has repeated its stand against creating a federal system of
Government in Guyana, saying it does not agree that this will enhance
ethnic security and co-operation.

The governing alliance's stand was reiterated Friday night in its
presentation to the Constitution Reform Commission.

General Secretary, Mr. Donald Ramotar, told the commission that Guyanese
generally live in peace and harmony and in numerous mixed communities
across the country.

"The strength of our unity and the degree to which our people are
determined that it should be maintained were demonstrated by their
refusal to heed the recent calls for war in January and June last year",
he argued.

"It is only in Georgetown that criminal elements, who had to be organised
and paid, responded to the appeals for destabilisation by assaulting and
robbing innocent Guyanese of perceived East Indian origin.

"We believe that the creation of separate states in Guyana, which will
have to be given the right of secession, would be a retrograde step", he
said.

Ramotar contended that this "can lead to the break up of Guyana and
weaken our capacity to deal with our border problems."

He said strengthening the regional and Local Government systems offered
greater possibilities for developing the collaborative efforts of the
various communities and called on all interested parties to discuss and
devise measures to increase the capacity of these bodies to deliver
services to the communities they serve.

The devolution of powers from the regions to the National Democratic
Councils should be at the top of the agenda, he advocated.

The PPP/Civic said it supported the principle of majoritarianism but
rejected the concept of majority diktat.

Ramotar said the alliance recognised calls for a return to the
Westminster system and understood the sentiments which have motivated
them.

"However, it is the Westminster system which facilitated the
establishment of a dictatorship in Guyana, whereby the party obtaining
the largest number of votes, but a minority in Parliament, was, at first,
not invited to form the government, then subjected to electoral robbery
and suppression. What guarantees exist that this will not happen again?",
he argued.

He said that under the existing system such a party will win the
presidency and it will protect any such party in the future.

"Such protection is vitally necessary in view of our past and the obvious
attempts to return us to that era", he stressed.

Ramotar said that the PPP/Civic, in one of its earliest reforms to the
Parliamentary system during its last government, effected an amendment to
the Standing Orders with the co-operation of the Opposition, to establish
Standing Committees.

The purpose of these committees was to enhance transparency and
accountability in governance and to provide a greater role within the
Parliamentary system for the Opposition, he said.

No such committee has been established despite efforts by the last
Government and all the deficiencies in governance complained about can be
addressed by these committees, he told the commission.

According to Ramotar, this reform envisaged the opposition playing a
larger than usual role in the governance of the country.

He said complaints about bad governance, victimisation and corruption
have a hollow ring when mechanisms exist to deal with these matters,
"mechanisms which are shunned because of partisan political
considerations and the refusal to accept the democratic will of the
electorate."

He said the PPP/Civic recommended that consideration be given to the
elevation of these mechanisms to constitutional principles.

The parliamentary, regional and Local Government systems have "vast
opportunities" for using the committee system, which is already in
existence and in operation, he said.

This can ensure a high level of co-operation in governance, "which is
already occurring in many instances at the local level; strengthening
good governance; enhancing opposition participation in the
decision-making process and protecting the interests of all minorities."

He said the PPP/Civic would not object to these principles obtaining
constitutional protection.

Ramotar noted this would allow the views of the majority party in all
these institutions to be subject to scrutiny and "a constitutionally
protected basis will facilitate a bipartisan approach to and a
collaborative effort in relation to governance."

"It is only under these circumstances that the political system and
political culture in Guyana will grow."

The PPP/Civic also supports a two-term presidency, he announced.

"We believe that the limitation of the President to two consecutive terms
accords with modern trends and will prevent the return to dictatorial
tendencies to retain political power", Ramotar told the commission.

The alliance has withdrawn a proposal to revise the boundaries of the
regions and to eliminate representatives from the regions, to help
consensus in constitutional reform, he said.

"However, in view of our proposal for the abolition of the National
Council of Local Democratic Organs, which nominates two members of
Parliament, Parliament will now consist of 63 members, 53 elected in
accordance with Proportional Representation and 10 regional
representatives", he said.

Ramotar said the PPP/Civic had "grave suspicions" about proposals to
change the electoral system.

Explaining this stand, he noted the electoral system was changed in 1964
"because it was seen as the only way by which the PPP, which had won
three successive elections by the First Past the Post system, could be
defeated."

"Now that the PPP/Civic has won two successive elections by Proportional
Representation, calls are once again being heard for a change in the
electoral system. While we believe that many proposals are being made
because of genuine concerns, we also believe that there lurks behind many
of these schemes the objective of once again loading the dice against the
PPP/Civic."

"We absolutely reject these calls. If the concern is to generate more
accountability of parliamentarians, we have no objection to a return to
the First Past the Post system with constituencies, which are fairly
demarcated", he said.

Ramotar reiterated the alliance's backing for provisions in the
Constitution to establish a Race Relations Commission and/or an Equal
Opportunity Commission, the functions of which will be to address
complaints of discrimination and victimisation; to recommend laws and
policies to eliminate discrimination and improve equal opportunities and
access to resources for minorities including the disabled; and such other
activities as are appropriate.

It also supports greater constitutional protection for indigenous
peoples, he said.

It was of "utmost concern to us that indigenous peoples be given wider
constitutional protection for the preservation of their rights, their
culture and their way of life in a united Guyana", he said.

Ramotar said a new Constitution will be a mere piece of paper and will
neither help to develop a new political culture nor protect the Guyanese
people, just as the 1966 Constitution failed to do, "unless we all agree
to be bound by the principles and conventions of constitutional supremacy
and the rule of law and unless a closure is brought to our undemocratic
past in such a way as to lead to a high degree of confidence that it will
not return."

Ramotar's presentation was in addition to a written submission on
constitutional reform he tabled with the commission.

Among the proposals are amending Article 1 so that Guyana will no longer
be known as the Cooperative Republic of Guyana but simply the Republic of
Guyana, "an indivisible, secular, democratic, sovereign state".

This is based on the argument that "it has always been incorrect to
characterise Guyana's social and economic stage as one of transition from
capitalism to socialism" as is presently the case, and that referring to
the country as a cooperative republic "was a derisory attempt" at
fostering the concept of "cooperative socialism" which never sat well
with the populace anyhow.

Another proposal is that the composition of the National Assembly be
reduced by two to 63 members, in view of another proposal to abolish the
National Congress of Local Democratic Organs given that it serves no
useful purpose.

It has been proposed that the National Assembly should consist only of
the 53 members elected in accordance with the system of Proportional
Representation (PR), and a member each from the ten administrative
regions.

It has also been proposed that the President be stripped of his/her
powers to dissolve Parliament in the event of being investigated for
violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.